Merlin's Beard

Salman Khan

noreply@blogger.com (Arup) — Sun, 03 May 2009 06:41:00 +0000

This has increased my respect for Salman Khan's intellect manifold (from non-existent to high regard). Displays a clarity of thinking one doesn't associate with him. Maybe his points are picked up from conversation, but he's held on to exactly the right points.
Probably one of the worst-edited interviews I've seen though.

Salman on Mumbai Attacks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fp0f-YBu4j4&NR=1

Acting Shacting

noreply@blogger.com (Arup) — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 02:48:00 +0000

the list includes only male actors, and a separate list will be devoted to actresses. the actors including aren't including solely on the basis of their acting skills, but also for the quality of their work. and sometimes, even more so for the quality of their work.

vinay pathak: dasvidaniya is an epic film, and most of the credit lies with pathak. bheja fry is a 'copy' of a french film, but that shouldn't take too much away from pathak's performance. even when he's doing a smaller role e.g. in khosla ka ghosla, pathak just hooks the audience onto him. he's made quite a few films that he had no business being in, but he still deserves to make the list.

paresh rawal: absolute genius. especially when he teams up with priyadarshan. baburao ganpatrao apte is a legend. and for once, hearing a man say "jai maharashtra" is profoundly funny.

abhay deol: certainly a debatable entry. but from the choice of his films, especially manorama and oye lucky, one can safely say that the man isn't a sellout. he's a thinking actor trying to bring worthy stories, told innovatively, to the screen.

anupam kher: some very good performances in the recent past. wednesday, khosla ka ghosla, maine gandhi ko nahin maara.

naseeruddin shah and om puri: while they're recent performances don't compare to their films of the 70s and 80s (nishant, mirch masala, bazaar, ardh satya, the list goes on) they're still rolling out performances where u can't imagine another actor filling their shoes once you've seen the film (a wednesday,rang de, yuva, maqbool,iqbal, etc)

aamir khan: mostly for his recent work post (and including) dil chahta hai. lagaan. rang de basanti. taare zameen par. earlier commendable works include 1947 earth, sarfarosh, ghulam and rangeela.

sanjay dutt: it's hard to include sanjay in the list without including arshad warsi. he makes the list for his performances in vaastav and lage raho (not the first munnabhai). for the simple reason, that no other actor could pull off those performances and still retain their image of 'dil ka bhala insaan' that he holds in our eyes. the man possessed an ak-56 that salem gave him, and yet we still love sanjubaba and just wish he were innocent. that says a lot about the work he's done (naam,sadak,etc). his obsession with the don/bhai character can be a drag at times.

pankaj kapoor: this was the easiest name to include. although we'd seen him in jaane bhi do yaaron (alongside both naseer and om) we didn't see the man's immense talent reach its full potential before we saw him alongside them again in maqbool. office office, karamchand, and zabaan sambhal warrant his inclusion as well. halla bol isn't a great film but pankaj kapoor is around for the few worthy scenes. the blue umbrella is a sweet film that kids should definitely watch.

questons: should shreyas talpade make the list? he was very good in iqbal, sublime in sajjanpur, and has even starred in a big box office sell out (om shanti om).

should nana patekar? the man makes this list because he is an institution in himself. without him, indian standup would be lacklustre and sunil pal would not be funny.

should atul lulkarni? for range de, chandni bar and hey ram?

kay kay menon deserves to be on the list if we judge the actor on his ability to choose films. and roles. he is best when he underplays. his weaknesses are only revealed in his superfluous performances, and a good director would do well to cut his performances down a notch (e.g. editing out the scene when dukey bana is alone in the frame, screaming into the camera makes menon's performance as good as any other. leaving it in, rated his performance below mumbai meri jaan and hazaaron)

should hrithik? for the sincerity with which he acts. and for lakshya, mission kashmir and fiza.
amitabh shouldn't make the list, because including him would require me to include shashi kapoor, and dilip kumar, amjad khan and so on.

Xavier's Quiz

noreply@blogger.com (Arup) — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 21:52:00 +0000

Barry O'Brien is an epic and pompous bore, but two people that share his last name have given more to quizzing than most Calcuttans. My guess is that the questions that make you doubt your 'Xaverian-ness,' largely due to the man's inability to comprehend that time is not static and his utter lack of humour, are compiled by Bartholomew (I don't really know if that's his name, but I think it suits his massive 'jawler-tanki' frame), and the ones that leave you feeling you've learnt something more about a place you cherish are by Neil.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1090122/jsp/calcutta/story_104264522.jsp

Malnutrition in India

noreply@blogger.com (Arup) — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 04:05:00 +0000

Someone famously said that in India for whatever is true, the opposite is also true. However, in certain cases, truths simply don't have opposites. Every once in a while, I learn something about the people of the nation that leaves me convinced that the popular mainstream narrative about India's 'success' leaves much to be desired. The country has grown at at least 7% or more for almost all of the past decade, and that is approximately the amount of time that it takes an economy to double at that growth rate.

Yet, according to World Bank estimates, 456 million Indians (42% of the total Indian population) now live under the global poverty line of $1.25 per day (PPP). The Planning Commission puts the figure at 27.5% (2005), an improvement from 36% (1994) a decade earlier.

This means that the collective income of 27% of India i.e. 300 million people (about the population of the U.S.) in 2005 was less than $137 billion (PPP). In the years between 2000 and 2004 alone, the economy expanded by $1228 billion. Hence, if these 300 million people had started with $137 billion in 2000, and had received 1/9 (11 %) of the $1228 billion increase in income, then their collective income could have doubled!

Even those who are aware of these figures, and have grown up in pockets of relative economic stability surrounded by urban poverty (like myself), the face of abject rural poverty is one they have only seen in films, read in books, or caught fleeting glimpses of in real life. If Bangalore is the flagship of India's 'success,' then the body, hearts, and souls in this New York Times Slideshow, are certainly emblematic of the nation's collective 'failure.'

Attached below is a graph of the rate of poverty alleviation in India over the past 30 years as calculated by the Ministry of Statistics and Program Implementation. And here is the link to the NYTimes article that accompanied the slideshow.

Ruchir Joshi paraphrasing Obama

noreply@blogger.com (Arup) — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 06:23:00 +0000

Here is an excerpt from the engaging article published in The Telegraph

"With massive civility and eloquence — two qualities so sorely missing around Pennsylvania Avenue in recent times — what Barack Obama said to Bush and his cohorts was: ‘You are now dead. It may take us a while to bury you, to safely get rid of your toxic remains, but you are, as of now, utterly and completely dead.’"

The entire article is available at:
http://telegraphindia.com/1090126/jsp/opinion/story_10436346.jsp

A Leader for Our Times

noreply@blogger.com (Arup) — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 03:50:00 +0000

by Lasantha Wickrematunga

(This extraordinary article by the editor of the Sri Lankan Sunday Leader was published three days after he was shot dead in Colombo)

No other profession calls on its practitioners to lay down their lives for their art save the armed forces - and, in Sri Lanka, journalism. In the course of the last few years, the independent media have increasingly come under attack. Electronic and print institutions have been burned, bombed, sealed and coerced. Countless journalists have been harassed, threatened and killed. It has been my honour to belong to all those categories, and now especially the last.

I have been in the business of journalism a good long time. Indeed, 2009 will be the Sunday Leader's 15th year. Many things have changed in Sri Lanka during that time, and it does not need me to tell you that the greater part of that change has been for the worse. We find ourselves in the midst of a civil war ruthlessly prosecuted by protagonists whose bloodlust knows no bounds. Terror, whether perpetrated by terrorists or the state, has become the order of the day. Indeed, murder has become the primary tool whereby the state seeks to control the organs of liberty. Today it is the journalists, tomorrow it will be the judges. For neither group have the risks ever been higher or the stakes lower.

Why then do we do it? I often wonder that. After all, I too am a husband, and the father of three wonderful children. I too have responsibilities and obligations that transcend my profession, be it the law or journalism. Is it worth the risk? Many people tell me it is not. Friends tell me to revert to the bar, and goodness knows it offers a better and safer livelihood.

Others, including political leaders on both sides, have at various times sought to induce me to take to politics, going so far as to offer me ministries of my choice. Diplomats, recognising the risk journalists face in Sri Lanka, have offered me safe passage and the right of residence in their countries.

Whatever else I may have been stuck for, I have not been stuck for choice.

But there is a calling that is yet above high office, fame, lucre and security. It is the call of conscience.

The Sunday Leader has been a controversial newspaper because we say it like we see it: whether it be a spade, a thief or a murderer, we call it by that name. We do not hide behind euphemism. The investigative articles we print are supported by documentary evidence thanks to the public-spiritedness of citizens who at great risk to themselves pass on this material to us. We have exposed scandal after scandal, and never once in these 15 years has anyone proved us wrong or successfully prosecuted us.

The free media serve as a mirror in which the public can see itself sans mascara and styling gel. From us you learn the state of your nation, and especially its management by the people you elected to give your children a better future. Sometimes the image you see in that mirror is not a pleasant one. But while you may grumble in the privacy of your armchair, the journalists who hold the mirror up to you do so publicly and at great risk to themselves. That is our calling, and we do not shirk it.

The Sunday Leader has never sought safety by unquestioningly articulating the majority view. Let's face it, that is the way to sell newspapers. On the contrary, as our opinion pieces over the years amply demonstrate, we often voice ideas that many people find distasteful. For instance, we have consistently espoused the view that while separatist terrorism must be eradicated, it is more important to address the root causes of terrorism, and urge government to view Sri Lanka's ethnic strife in the context of history and not through the telescope of terrorism. We have also agitated against state terrorism in the so-called war against terror, and made no secret of our horror that Sri Lanka is the only country in the world routinely to bomb its own citizens. For these views we have been labelled traitors; and if this be treachery, we wear that label proudly.

Many people suspect that the Sunday Leader has a political agenda: it does not. If we appear more critical of the government than of the opposition, it is only because we believe that - excuse cricketing argot - there is no point in bowling to the fielding side. Remember that for the few years of our existence in which the United National party was in office, we proved to be the biggest thorn in its flesh, exposing excess and corruption wherever it occurred.

Indeed, the stream of embarrassing expositions we published may well have served to precipitate the downfall of that government.

Neither should our distaste for the war be interpreted to mean that we support the Tamil Tigers. The LTTE is among the most ruthless and bloodthirsty organisations to have infested the planet. There is no gainsaying that it must be eradicated. But to do so by violating the rights of Tamil citizens, bombing and shooting mercilessly, is not only wrong but shames the Sinhalese, whose claim to be custodians of the dhamma is for ever called into question by this savagery - much of it unknown to the public because of censorship.

What is more, a military occupation of the country's north and east will require the Tamil people of those regions to live eternally as second-class citizens, deprived of all self-respect. Do not imagine you can placate them by showering "development" and "reconstruction" on them in the postwar era. The wounds of war will scar them for ever, and you will have an even more bitter and hateful diaspora to contend with. A problem amenable to a political solution will thus become a festering wound that will yield strife for all eternity. If I seem angry and frustrated, it is only because most of my compatriots - and all the government - cannot see this writing so plainly on the wall.

It is well known that I was on two occasions brutally assaulted, while on another my house was sprayed with machine-gun fire. Despite the government's sanctimonious assurances, there was never a serious police inquiry into the perpetrators of these attacks, and the attackers were never apprehended.

In all these cases, I have reason to believe the attacks were inspired by the government. When finally I am killed, it will be the government that kills me.

The irony in this is that, unknown to most of the public, President Mahinda Rajapaksa and I have been friends for more than a quarter-century. Indeed, I suspect that I am one of the few people remaining to routinely address him by his first name and use the familiar Sinhala address - oya - when talking to him.

Although I do not attend the meetings he periodically holds for newspaper editors, hardly a month passes when we do not meet, privately or with a few close friends present, late at night at President's House. There we swap yarns, discuss politics and joke about the good old days. A few remarks to him would therefore be in order here.

Mahinda, when you finally fought your way to the Sri Lanka Freedom party presidential nomination in 2005, nowhere were you welcomed more warmly than in this column. Indeed, we broke with a decade of tradition by referring to you throughout by your first name. So well known were your commitments to human rights and liberal values that we ushered you in like a breath of fresh air.

Then, through an act of folly, you got involved in the Helping Hambantota scandal. It was after a lot of soul-searching that we broke the story, urging you to return the money. By the time you did, several weeks later, a great blow had been struck to your reputation. It is one you are still trying to live down.

You have told me yourself that you were not greedy for the presidency. You did not have to hanker after it: it fell into your lap. You have told me that your sons are your greatest joy, and that you love spending time with them, leaving your brothers to operate the machinery of state. Now, it is clear to all who will see that that machinery has operated so well, my sons and daughter do not have a father.

In the wake of my death I know you will make all the usual sanctimonious noises and call upon the police to hold a swift and thorough inquiry.

But like all the inquiries you have ordered in the past, nothing will come of this one, too. For truth be told, we both know who will be behind my death, but dare not call his name. Not just my life but yours too depends on it.

As for me, I have the satisfaction of knowing that I walked tall and bowed to no man. And I have not travelled this journey alone. Fellow journalists in other branches of the media walked with me: most are now dead, imprisoned without trial or exiled in far-off lands. Others walk in the shadow of death that your presidency has cast on the freedoms for which you once fought so hard. You will never be allowed to forget that my death took place under your watch. As anguished as I know you will be, I also know that you will have no choice but to protect my killers: you will see to it that the guilty one is never convicted. You have no choice.

As for the readers of the Sunday Leader, what can I say but thank you for supporting our mission. We have espoused unpopular causes, stood up for those too feeble to stand up for themselves, locked horns with the high and mighty so swollen with power that they have forgotten their roots, exposed corruption and the waste of your hard-earned tax rupees, and made sure that whatever the propaganda of the day, you were allowed to hear a contrary view. For this I - and my family - have paid the price that I had long known I would one day have to pay. I am, and have always been, ready for that. I have done nothing to prevent this outcome: no security, no precautions. I want my murderer to know that I am not a coward like he is, hiding behind human shields while condemning thousands of innocents to death. What am I among so many? It has long been written that my life would be taken, and by whom. All that remained to be written was when.

That the Sunday Leader will continue fighting the good fight, too, is written. For I did not fight this fight alone. Many more of us have to be - and will be - killed before the Leader is laid to rest. I hope my assassination will be seen not as a defeat of freedom but an inspiration for those who survive to step up their efforts. Indeed, I hope that it will help galvanise forces that will usher in a new era of human liberty in our beloved motherland. I also hope it will open the eyes of your president to the fact that however many are slaughtered in the name of patriotism, the human spirit will endure and flourish.

People often ask me why I take such risks and tell me it is a matter of time before I am bumped off. Of course I know that: it is inevitable. But if we do not speak out now, there will be no one left to speak for those who cannot, whether they be ethnic minorities, the disadvantaged or the persecuted. An example that has inspired me throughout my career in journalism has been that of the German theologian, Martin Niemöller. In his youth he was an antisemite and an admirer of Hitler. As nazism took hold of Germany, however, he saw nazism for what it was. It was not just the Jews Hitler sought to extirpate, it was just about anyone with an alternate point of view. Niemöller spoke out, and for his trouble was incarcerated in the Sachsenhausen and Dachau concentration camps from 1937 to 1945, and very nearly executed. While incarcerated, he wrote a poem that, from the first time I read it in my teenage years, stuck hauntingly in my mind:

First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.

If you remember nothing else, let it be this: the Leader is there for you, be you Sinhalese, Tamil, Muslim, low-caste, homosexual, dissident or disabled.

Its staff will fight on, unbowed and unafraid, with the courage to which you have become accustomed. Do not take that commitment for granted. Let there be no doubt that whatever sacrifices we journalists make, they are not made for our own glory or enrichment: they are made for you. Whether you deserve their sacrifice is another matter. As for me, God knows I tried.

This is the edited version that appeared in The Guardian. The unedited article is available at http://www.thesundayleader.lk/20090111/editorial-.htm .

Rushdie vs Arundhati

noreply@blogger.com (Arup) — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 06:32:00 +0000

Arundhati Roy recently wrote an article (published in Outlook Magazine in India and the Guardian in Britain) which Salman Rushdie, a self-described Bombay Boy, has since taken exception to.

The article in question can be found at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/12/mumbai-arundhati-roy . Rushdie's response (at least one of them) can be found at http://in.youtube.com/watch?v=I7uhNYu78MY

The primary bone that Rushdie wants to pick with Arundhati is her using the concept of justice to analyse the cause behind the Mumbai attacks.

Rushdie makes the point that treating injustice as the cause of the attacks implies that the objective of the perpetrators of the attacks is justice. He goes on to say that the planners of these attacks are looking for power, and not justice. He sees it as a calculated power grab to destabilize India and derail Pakistan's road to democracy. (Imran Khan defines this as the president giving up the extra-judicial powers assumed by the office during Musharraf's reign, the prime minister's office being restored as the highest executive office in the country, and formation/restoration of the independent judiciary).

I believe that Rushdie and Arundhati fundamentally differ in their approach to the Mumbai attacks. While Rushdie sees the attacks as one of many terrorist attacks carried out by violent organizations worldwide, Arundhati sees them as one of the many episodes of violence that India has suffered in the recent past. Additionally, Arundhati is largely discussing the motivation behind a 'recruit' joining a violent organization, and Rushdie is addressing the 'planners' and 'handlers' who run these organizations.

Arundhati believes injustice is the primary cause for 20 something youths all over the world (particularly the developing world) joining various violent groups that use terror as a tactic to make their point. In her opinion, addressing and eradicating what she believes is the central motivation for the 'recruits' joining these organisations i.e. injustice (and the lack of opportunity and purpose that stems from it), will deprive the fanatical godmen and the scheming Dawoods of the cannon fodder for their operations - the disaffected youth.

Rushdie believes that the root cause of the Mumbai attacks (and others like it) is the existence and influence of the dawoods and the fanatics in the corridors of power. Even if the injustice were to magically evaporate, these ' terrorist handlers' would still be able to find people to serve their evil ends. If not disaffected youth, then perhaps mercenaries. Unless these men are removed from the corridors of power, and the structure that feeds them money and power from military and civil sources is dismantled, there will never be peace.

In my opinion, Arundhati's approach is to look at the Mumbai attacks as a terrorist atrocity part of a larger web of tragedies that have plagued India in the recent past. She does not approach the problem in search of a solution that will prevent attacks like Mumbai (with their degree of planning and alleged cross-border participation) in particular, but terrorist attacks on Indian soil in general. In any case, only a higher degree of vigilance can prevent cross-border attacks of this nature. Hence, her solution is for us as a nation to introspect ("look ourselves in the mirror.") In her opinion, the failure of the nation to provide its youth, especially in tribal belts and among minorities, with equal and adequate opportunities is making them disaffected, disillusioned, and leading some of them to vent their frustration by resorting to violent outbursts of hatred.

In contrast, Rushdie is addressing the Mumbai attacks in particular and believes the solution is in persecuting the people who plan operations like Mumbai. From all the evidence that has been amassed thus far, it seems that at least some, if not all, of the 'recruits' and the 'handlers' were based in Pakistan and obtained their training in Pakistan. Rushdie simply does not see injustice as the motivation of the 'elements within Pakistan' responsible for planning and executing the Mumbai attacks. He also believes that attacks of this scale could not have been carried out without the knowledge of elements within Pakistan's establishment, particularly the ISI. Unless Pakistan takes firm steps towards dissociating the ISI and its military from organizations such as the LeT, it can never take legitimate steps towards a lasting peace with India.

In conlcusion: Although Rushdie takes exception to Arundhati's article, what he and Arundhati are saying are not as much contradictory, as the approach that each adopts to addressing the problem is radically different.

Laxman on Ganguly

noreply@blogger.com (Arup) — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 02:34:00 +0000

Excerpt from an interview (100 Miles) given by VVS Laxman to Pradeep Magazine:

A lot of people say that Sourav as captain was responsible in the transformation in the attitude of the Indian team. What's your thought on this?

Yes, definitely, because the way the captain leads is very, very important and Sourav was the captain during that phase, when we actually changed the trend or the way we approached an overseas tour. Along with that, I give a lot of credit to John Wright because he instilled in us the hunger to do well abroad. So it's a combination of Sourav and John, and the hunger in each one of us that we have to do something we've never done before.

Also I think when Sourav was the captain, he gave each and every player confidence. Once he believed that a player was a match-winner, he backed him. For me, that has been his strongest point. Because of him, a lot of match-winners emerged during his tenure. Then, he's been of an aggressive nature as a captain. I especially remember the 2001 series, when Steve Waugh started talking and giving his statements from Australia (laughs), Sourav started to retaliate and give it back to Steve Waugh, which spurred us on. That's why the contest in an Australia-India series is so intense, and I think Sourav is the man who started it all. There've been a lot of attributes to his captaincy, and his batting. We enjoyed playing alongside him and he was definitely a great team man.

Hi

noreply@blogger.com (Arup) — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 04:33:00 +0000

26/12/2008 11.38 pm

lights. camera. inaction.